Are calories all that matter?

[blutoski]

The thermic effect of food is only approximately 10% of your total caloric usage for a day. Caffeinated beverages don't add a significant amount to that 10%.

Its major effect is that because it is a stimulant and diuretic. The effect of passing water more quickly gives the illusion of immediate weight loss. It's just a temporary effect and the body adapts.

 

[blutoski]

Exercise helps burn calories, but it is perfectly possible to lose weight with no exercise at all.

I'm always careful to warn clients about this problem. Zathros warn, but nobody listen poor Zathros. Sad Zathos.

There is a tendency for people who start an exercise program to rationalize poor eating habits: "I did a workout today, so I can afford to order the side of fries and milkshake."

Compounding the problem are "sport bars" "sport drinks" and "sport shakes". Some clients who are doing only trivial workouts are overestimating how this really taxes their bodies and overcompensate by adding calorie-dense products to their otherwise unchanged diet.

 

[Beth]

Yes, some people have much more trouble losing weight than others, and some people can eat far more calories than others without gaining weight. Still, for any given individual, with a given metabolism, the calories in/calories out rule still applies. Elementary physics tells us that if a body takes in fewer calories than it uses up, it will lose weight. Intake IS all that matters (if output is unchanged). Decreasing calorie intake sufficiently WILL necessarily result in weight loss. It's very simple. It just isn't easy, because hunger pangs interfere with self-discipline.

There is no scientific evidence that eating different foods can trigger a change in the basic metabolic rate;

This I think is true. At least, I'm not aware of any evidence regarding this.

and there is no scientific rationale to suggest it should.

This part I'm not so sure about. There are various hypotheses around regarding this. What constitutes a 'scientific rational' supporting a hypothesis is a rather subjective assessment.

There is also no scientific evidence to support the idea that different diets cause weight loss without equal calorie reduction. Dumbledore's experience is common; he changed the kinds of foods he ate, and thought he was eating the same number of calories, but in reality he was eating fewer calories. We are not very good judges of our own calorie intake. When scientific studies are done of claims like Dumbledore's, calorie intake is always shown to be lower.

I'm not so sure about this either. I have read of studies that indicate otherwise, but I don't have them at hand to cite. Further, it's difficult to determine whether it's the change in calories, the change in foods eaten, changes in activity level which caused a weight reduction, particularly given that those factors might well be interacting - i.e. a healthier diet with the same calories might either change the basic metabolic rate or it might change the subjective feelings of well-being leading to a higher activity level which results in a higher metabolic rate.

Bottom line, while I agree the idea that eating different foods while maintaining the same calorie intake and losing weight isn't scientifically verified, I don't think you can assume that everyone who has had an experience like Dumbledore related is necessarily mistaken about how many calories they ate either.

 

[parrotslave]

Some foods, like simple carbohydrates, cause intense cravings in some people and avoiding them makes it easier to lose weight. It ties in with the reward center in the brain that is part of addiction.

I know I've noticed a huge difference in appetite and I feel full longer since I've switched to more complex carbohydrates.

 

[The SkepDoc]

This part I'm not so sure about. There are various hypotheses around regarding this. What constitutes a 'scientific rational' supporting a hypothesis is a rather subjective assessment.


I'm not so sure about this either. I have read of studies that indicate otherwise, but I don't have them at hand to cite. Further, it's difficult to determine whether it's the change in calories, the change in foods eaten, changes in activity level which caused a weight reduction, particularly given that those factors might well be interacting - i.e. a healthier diet with the same calories might either change the basic metabolic rate or it might change the subjective feelings of well-being leading to a higher activity level which results in a higher metabolic rate.

Bottom line, while I agree the idea that eating different foods while maintaining the same calorie intake and losing weight isn't scientifically verified, I don't think you can assume that everyone who has had an experience like Dumbledore related is necessarily mistaken about how many calories they ate either.

There are hypothetical rationales for various claims, but so far all the evidence indicates that if they are valid, their effect is too small to be of practical use. You point out the difficulties of doing accurate diet studies. I think I am justified in assuming Dumbledore ate fewer calories, since that is compatible with current scientific knowledge. I would not be justified in assuming his claim was correct unless studies were done that measured calorie intake objectively, and showed that with all other factors equal, weight can be lost without calorie reduction. Lots of people have tried to demonstrate that, but no one has done so convincingly.

 

[JJM]

In the 1960s, the truth came out- you can eat all you want and lose weight, as long as you ate grapefruit with your meals. It turns out that grapefruit burns calories; but the medical establishment doesn't want us to know.

I met a guy who lost 80 pounds on that diet. I asked him if he really ate anything he wanted. He replied "Well, I cut out all the pasta and desserts ..."

I guess that grapefruit is powerful stuff.

 

[neon]

High fat content is the worst.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

As you've seen in this thread, For the most part concerning the energy content of food a calorie is a calorie. However concerning nutrition, all calories are not created equal. Some calories are "empty calories" as in they contain the energy content but lack the nutritional content. So from a energy point of view, Calorie=Calorie and from a nutritional point of view Calorie/Calorie.

The fact is, Most of these "fad" diets are at best useless and at worst dangerous. The only thing that one needs to do to lose weight is eat less and exercise more. Physically that's all that is required. Add in a good diet and smart exercise regime and active lifestyle and you're set to go. It may be harder for some than others to lose weight however anyone can lose bodyfat.

 

[Pup]

As you've seen in this thread, For the most part concerning the energy content of food a calorie is a calorie.

Thanks everyone!

That's pretty much what I thought, but was curious to see any contradictory information. Six years ago, I lost about 30 pounds just by eating less, but of course the difficulty then came in making sure I got all my nutritional needs from a bare minimum of calories, while selecting foods that made me feel satisfied enough not to overeat.

I'd thought that the latter two problems were what most weight loss diet plans addressed, since "eating less" is pretty straightforward.

But I've encountered people who insist it's the choice of foods that causes the weight loss, and not the calories. Or who say no matter how little they eat, they never lose weight. It just didn't seem logical.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

All those things may affect your metabolism, but not very much. In a practical sense, the effect of the number of meals and the temperature of your water are negligible. It makes little difference how the calories are distributed through the day. Some find it easier to eat regular meals, some prefer multiple small snacks instead of meals, some prefer skipping meals or intermittent fasting. Some people think drinking more water helps fool their stomach into feeling full; otherwise, the recommended 8-10 glasses a day is a myth. Exercise helps burn calories, but it is perfectly possible to lose weight with no exercise at all.

The only reason I can think of that the frequent small meals idea might help is that you never stretch out your stomach, so it stays relatively small which may lead to feeling less hungry.

Otherwise, going from completely sedentary to nearly any sort of exercise program probably has a much greater effect on how many calories you burn than any of the (safe) metabolism changing schemes.

The OP sort of had two questions: are calories all that matter for weight loss? and are calories all that matter for health? (The answers are yes and no, respectively.)

I'm pretty sure most studies of the various sorts of "diets" show that they all "work" when you're compliant with a calorie limit, and that few people stay compliant past about 6 months. Seems to me, the only way to stay healthy is to make healthy eating and exercise a normal (and permanent) part of your life rather than going "on a diet".

 

[NeilC]

100 calories of protein does not provide the body with as much glucose energy as a 100 of starch because the metabolism of the protein uses more energy. See ""A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics": http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9

 

[parrotslave]

The only reason I can think of that the frequent small meals idea might help is that you never stretch out your stomach, so it stays relatively small which may lead to feeling less hungry.

I think it has more to do with blood sugar spikes and drop offs. Diabetics usually go with the more frequent smaller meals.

I did read something about high levels insulin in the blood keeping the body from releasing the hormone glucagon that helps bring stored food energy out of the fat cells to be used. So if mostly simple carbohydrates are consumed at the more frequent meals, it makes it harder to lose fat.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

100 calories of protein does not provide the body with as much glucose energy as a 100 of starch because the metabolism of the protein uses more energy. See ""A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics": http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9

But surely this difference (in real life) is insignificant compared to overall number of calories in the diet relative to how many calories an individual burns, isn't it?

 

[NeilC]

But surely this difference (in real life) is insignificant compared to overall number of calories in the diet relative to how many calories an individual burns, isn't it?

I don't honestly know. I'd guess that in a balanced diet the difference is not signficant but in a no-carb diet could easily be so.

I think when producing glucose by breaking down protein via gluconeogenesis about 1/3 of the calories are used up in the process. If nearly all your cals come via that process then it would be very significant. If correct.

 

[The SkepDoc]

100 calories of protein does not provide the body with as much glucose energy as a 100 of starch because the metabolism of the protein uses more energy. See ""A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics": http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9

I don't think the difference is of practical significance. The article you cite was a small pilot study, and it has been contradicted by later, better studies. This study: http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/content/full/9/suppl_1/5S concludes, "In conclusion, calories count, and low-CHO diets fail to confer a metabolic advantage with respect to body weight or body composition."

 

[NeilC]

I don't think the difference is of practical significance. The article you cite was a small pilot study, and it has been contradicted by later, better studies. This study: http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/content/full/9/suppl_1/5S concludes, "In conclusion, calories count, and low-CHO diets fail to confer a metabolic advantage with respect to body weight or body composition."

In fairness that article is not a study at all. It is merely a piece making the point that there are other issues at stake than the incorrect application of the laws of thermodynamics.

Also the link you provide isn't a study either. It is also an article and one very much trying to make a point. As such it contains some quite unscientific wording and statements.

The conclusion you quote is not the conclusion drawn from a scientific trial but merely an author's conclusion and one that I'm not convinced should automatically be drawn from the evidence he presents and certainly not from the wider evidence body on this subject.

I'm not saying that high protein/no carb diets are a good idea or even that they are a more effective diet than calorie controlling. But I don't see anything here that goes against the idea that 100 cals of protein results in less useable energy in the form of glucose than 100cals of carbohydrate. Surely that is key to the question of whether a "calorie is just a calorie"?

 

[casebro]

It's all appetite.

People who controll their appetite, are slim. People with larger appetites are bigger. Stomach surgery? A shrunken stomach is smaller, so sends a fullness message sooner, and you stop eating. All Appetite.

Some wanna-be body builders run into a limit of how much thay can digest, so they feel full before they can eat enough to support the growth of bigger muscle mass. It's all appetite.

Eating different foods will only effect you in as much as the foods differ in 'fullness'. Not enough fullness, you'll eat more. It's all appetite.

Increase exercise? Makes me hungier, I don't lose weight. Eat light today, makes me hungrier tomorrow. I don't lose weight. It's all appetite.

 

[RationalVetMed]

...just the question of whether a person can take in more calories than they burn, or vice versa, without gaining or losing weight...

No, that's simple thermodynamics - if you take in more calories than you burn you will always put on weight.

Two people with differing lifestyles or basal metabolic rates could take in the same amount of calories and one could gain weight while the other loses it but if all factors are the same apart from calorie intake it comes down to: energy in = energy out = stable weight and energy in > energy out = increased weight. (Discounting temporary stuff like dehydration, weight of bowel and bladder contents etc)

Yuri

 

[The SkepDoc]

In fairness that article is not a study at all. It is merely a piece making the point that there are other issues at stake than the incorrect application of the laws of thermodynamics.

Also the link you provide isn't a study either. It is also an article and one very much trying to make a point. As such it contains some quite unscientific wording and statements.

The conclusion you quote is not the conclusion drawn from a scientific trial but merely an author's conclusion and one that I'm not convinced should automatically be drawn from the evidence he presents and certainly not from the wider evidence body on this subject.

I'm not saying that high protein/no carb diets are a good idea or even that they are a more effective diet than calorie controlling. But I don't see anything here that goes against the idea that 100 cals of protein results in less useable energy in the form of glucose than 100cals of carbohydrate. Surely that is key to the question of whether a "calorie is just a calorie"?

Actually, both articles were reviews. The first article highlighted the results of a small pilot study to support its conclusions. The article I cited was a review of all the "wider body of evidence" - all the scientific literature - and it listed 198 references to support its conclusions. The American Academy of Family Physicians pretty much agrees, in a much more recent review. http://www.aafp.org/afp/20060601/tips/3.html

As I tried to point out before, even if there is "less usable energy" that may not translate into a clinically significant difference. An analogy is the lottery; buying a ticket technically increases your chance of winning, but for all practical purposes it does not significantly increase your chances of winning.

 

[Dumbledore]

yes calories do count

I did not want to imply that calories are unimportant when it comes to dieting, I simply believe that they are not all that is important. What types foods we eat, how our bodies process these foods are also contributing factors. Our own genetic make up and body types are also a overwhelming factor, no matter how much I eat or work out I will never look like a body builder I do not have the genes for it. As anyone who is reading this thread can tell discussing dieting and weight loss is like walking though a field of land mines. Diet and weight loss is a mutibillion dollar market these days, I believe that on a regular basis we are lied to even by the scientific community about diet and weight loss. Their are many people out their who wish to push their own agenda and ideas no matter what the facts are. To set the record straight, I did not reduce my calorie intake when I lost weight. Why is this so hard to believe? America is full of people who are over weight, if the diet and weight loss information we are receivingis accurate and effective, they why are so many people overweight. Nor believe that these over weight people want to be fat, lack willpower, or are unwilling to do the work required to lose weight.